Re: How important is the age of a player?

[Mainline 0]

[quote user="Libbra Lives in Dubai"]what an utterly ridiculous and overly generic question... You might as well say... football, discuss.[/quote]

[Y] I second that too.

What were you thinking asking a question like that?!

[city till i die 0]

if i say i like them young, just sounds wrong

what a stupid question.........lol

[Mister Chops 7]

But many goalkeepers carry on into their late thirties, whereas a striker''s pretty much done by then with the odd exception (Dion?) so position plays a part too.  And look at Paul Scholes this season, he''s been dynamite.

[Brendo 0]

There is the argument of "if you''re good enough, you''re old enough", but sometimes I don''t think this is the case. If you have a good, young talent (other than a few exceptions e.g Wickham, Smith) I think it is best to play them gradually, and bring them into the team step by step. If a player rushes into a team at the age or 16/17, it could be too much to handle both physically and mentally.

Experience is a big issue, but if a player is confident and good enough, I see no problem in playing them. With goalkeepers it can be a different issue though. If say Joe Hart was to have played at the world cup, and god forbid made an absolute howler, it could have took him ages to recover from such a mistake. Even Roberto Green seems to be taking it hard and he''s about 30?

So I think it depends on the individual, but a good mix of both youth and experience is good, and that is what Norwich currently have. [:)]

[Shaun Tilly Lace 0]

Anybody above the age of seven and below seventy is fine!

[|BA 0]

Another stupid post from a bored Journalist.

Discuss

[I am a Banana 0]

[quote user="BA"]Another stupid post from a bored Journalist. Discuss[/quote]

i agree [y]

[Delia Out! 0]

[quote user="GenerationA47"]A good deal of experience but not too much age. So footballers should be at their most valuable about 27 or 28, I''d say. PREMIERSHIP WAGES BY AGE 17-18: £24,500 19-20: £95,000 21-22: £390,000 23-24: £582,500 25-26: £653,000 27-28: £899,500 29-30: £806,000 31-32: £586,000 33+: 660,500 (BBC Sport, 2006)[/quote]

Good statistics [Y]

I was just wondering why the hell players over the age of 33 get paid more than than players who are 25/26?

Seems ridiculous seeming as though most of them don''t/barely ever play!

But in answer to the original question, you have to have a certain amount of both in a team for it to be able to function properly. Say if you had all young players bar 1 or 2 it wouldn''t really work because the team would be inexperienced. So to a degree the team has to be balanced with youth and experience.

Take Dion Dublin for instance, he played a pivotal part in every season that he was with Norwich, and with other players like Drury and Huckerby in the side, who are both well experienced at Championship level, made way for some young lads to come through the ranks and break into the first team, like Chris Martin and various others.

So you have to have a good balance between youth and experience, but it depends in what division you play in. Say you were in League 2, you would need more experience from players who have played at higher leagues, to provide the team with some know-how. Whereas in the Championship you see alot of younger players breaking through and trying to cut it at a higher level. Take, he started at Championship Level with Southampton and played well there and managed to get a contract at Arsenal. At first it didn''t really look as though he would make it, and then his form was extremely inconsistent, and still is to a certain degree, but he has matured over the years and now plays for England.

If your team was full of youth or experience, and was doing really well, you wouldn''t change the amount of experience/youth to make it even would you?

So in many ways age does matter, but in others it doesn''t.

[:D]

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Delia Out"]

you have to have a certain amount of both in a team for it to be able to function properly. Say if you had all young players bar 1 or 2 it wouldn''t really work because the team would be inexperienced. So to a degree the team has to be balanced with youth and experience.

[/quote]

Quite so, you need a balance.  A key reason why we got relegated from the Prem in 1995 was that Chase had sold so many players who were in their prime (24-29ish) that we were left with a squad full of under 23s and over 30s.

 

[Mister Chops 7]

Same rule as for women.  If they''re good enough, they''re old enough.

[Woman in the Stands (WITS) 0]

[quote user="Mr. Chops"]Same rule as for women.  If they''re good enough, they''re old enough.[/quote]Sadly, the rule doesn''t always work the other way [;)]

[Jacko 0]

If you are selecting your best XI overall age or experience shouldn''t really determine who starts. What determines that is simply how well a player is performing. I think two examples from last year from Norwich''s successful campaign stare you in the face. On paper Stephen Hughes who played over 200 games for Rangers, Motherwell and Leicester would look a better bet than the inexperienced Korey Smith. In reality Smith is a far superior player to Hughes. The same applies to Cureton and Martin. Cureton has won the championship golden boot but looked like a shot duck in comparison to Martin. Its also reflected by the conference where it isnt the teams filled with players who have impressive league experience which do well but often the more progressive, emerging clubs.

Where age is extremely significant is when you are looking at acquiring a player. I am stating the blindingly obviously but clubs are looking for value for money. You could go out tomorrow and spend £25 million on Didier Drogba but it would arguably be a short termist move because at 32 it is unlikely he will perform at the highest level for much longer. The reason that the likes of Tottenham are queuing up for Wickham and willing to pay £8 million for him is because he has the ability to hopefully improve over time and perform at the top level for possibly a decade. This is why many footballers have alledgedly altered their ages to make them appear younger. It automatically makes them more attractively to clubs.

 

[Delia Out! 0]

Good post [Y]

[Delia Out! 0]

It happens to everyone [;)]

[GenerationA47 747]

[quote user="Delia Out"]

I was just wondering why the hell players over the age of 33 get paid more than than players who are 25/26?

Seems ridiculous seeming as though most of them don''t/barely ever play!

[/quote]

Hey D.O., I was thinking about that too. My best guess is it''s because there are far fewer per year group in that age range and the ones who stay on in football are the really important ones in terms of what they mean to the Premiership manager who''s either bringing them in from a higher status team, or keeping them. That would mean they are likely to have been among the top earners in their heyday, and they retain a high % of that even when they move clubs or renegotiate contracts.

This includes those stalwart defenders (Mabbutt, Adams) & midfielders (Giggs or Speed), and as people have implied, the odd Dion-type striker, who have the talent and record to be able inspire and organise the younger team members while still playing well. Man, you can tell my era of influence from those names, can''t you.

[Delia Out! 0]

[quote user="GenerationA47"][quote user="Delia Out"]

I was just wondering why the hell players over the age of 33 get paid more than than players who are 25/26?

Seems ridiculous seeming as though most of them don''t/barely ever play!

[/quote]

Hey D.O., I was thinking about that too. My best guess is it''s because there are far fewer per year group in that age range and the ones who stay on in football are the really important ones in terms of what they mean to the Premiership manager who''s either bringing them in from a higher status team, or keeping them. That would mean they are likely to have been among the top earners in their heyday, and they retain a high % of that even when they move clubs or renegotiate contracts.

This includes those stalwart defenders (Mabbutt, Adams) & midfielders (Giggs or Speed), and as people have implied, the odd Dion-type striker, who have the talent and record to be able inspire and organise the younger team members while still playing well. Man, you can tell my era of influence from those names, can''t you.

[/quote]

Also, they might pay alot because they can tutor the younger players who are inexperienced.

 

[HazzaJet 252]

If you ask me it''s experience but energy. I would say an outfield player: mid twenties, goalkeeper: ~30. It does vary though - look at Scholes and Giggs, and lets not forget Dublin. There are also some good young goalkeepers out there. Mainly it just depends on how much first team experience they get and how quickly they learn.

[Delia Out! 0]

I see your point and agree [Y]

[Tetteys Jig 830]

well value of the player is the main importance, as the post a few above says. Age doesn''t matter, but you usually need a balance of physicality, mentality, talent, togetherness and experience. Usually you get this through having some younger players and some older players

[Delia Out! 0]

I agree [Y]

[Gingerpele 0]

^^ lol